If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

"Rather, our system places responsibility for interpretation in the lap of the courts, with the Supreme Court being the final arbiter of disputes."

nogods,

You are still wrong in that statement, no matter how many times you repeat it.......

The citizens/people of these United States are the FINAL AUTHORITY/ARBITER, not the President, not Congress, not the Supreme Court................. and weENFORCE that AUTHORITY with our ARMS..

Please tell us, Mr oh so enlightened that we all appear as such uneducated fools......

Why is the 2nd Amendment even written if not for this very thing??

There is no other reason, no matter how much you try to cloud the issue.

Everyman a law unto himself? So why would need the other 8 provisions of the Bill of Rights? Why would we need a 1st amendment or any provision of the Constitution? Once we have the 2nd we have all the authority we need. Biggest gun rules.

Bingo! There is nothing inherently definitional in the word “right” or “arms.” They are nothing but words to which we have to give meaning. In the United States we have a system for giving meaning to words, phrases, concepts and principles used in our Constitution, and that system is not the Humpty Dumpty Method"

Our Founding Fathers gave the words meaning. I choose to embrace the meaning that was given them by the original authors. I'm not inclined to allow the interpretations of flawed humans and liberally biased judges such as Kagan, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor to infringe on MY "Right"... If they choose to not keep or bear arms so be it... I'll keep and bear mine...

Originally Posted by nogods

Rather, our system places responsibility for interpretation in the lap of the courts, with the Supreme Court being the final arbiter of disputes. You might not like that system because you don’t get to make the words mean what you want them to mean, but this is not Humpty Dumpty’s world.

So you trust the often biased thinking of the appointed judges? Humans not unlike you and I? Are they not giving the words definition and meaning as I have done? Perhaps Humpty Dumpty is alive and well in the members of the court? You just don't trust my judgment or interpretation and that's OK... I have a bias too...
It's infringement... It's still having someone else tell you how it's to be done. Interpretation, Restriction, Regulation... And when the court has finally reached the tipping point with the appointment of enough judges who like Mr. Dumpty, choose to make the words mean NO MORE GUNS FOR THE PEOPLE!!! What then? Swab the barrels and hand 'em over?

Originally Posted by nogods

Your inability to see the clear analogy is perplexing. Both the right to bear arms and the right to marry have been designated rights that can’t be “infringed.” I ask the question because I know many people who believe the right to marry is dependent on a limited definition of marriage, but then claim that the right to bear arms is based on an expansive definition of arms. Critical thinkers like me don’t allow such nonsense to flourish unchallenged.

Critical thinkers like me challenge any infringement on any GOD GIVEN "Right". I have an opinion though and I have the "Right" to that opinion. You made an assumption... Call it what it is...

Originally Posted by nogods

People who rile against education usually don’t have one or don’t have a very good one.

It's not education I rile against, it's the manner in which it's administered. The longing of the student to please the educator by adopting the mindset, biasing, fear, love, and loathing imparted by the educator along with the material. The will of the educator to convert the thinking of the student so it closely resembles their own. It's akin to brainwashing with both parties involved willingly. I can learn about a subject, understand the concepts and still disagree with them if it counters my thought process. It does not indicate lack of education. It is an indication of being opinionated...

Originally Posted by nogods

Education involves not only the acquisition of knowledge, but also the development of the critical thinking skills to allow such knowledge to be used to further advance knowledge. Those most fearful of what others teach are the least knowledgeable, not the other way around.

I have critical thinking skills. In all the discourse here I have come to the conclusion that my thinking skills have lead me to the correct assessment. You and all the rest of the White-Out wielding liberal zombies who claim higher states of enlightenment, will hand over the "Rights" God gave you with nary a whimper. Yea I know. Nogods, No "Rights"... Silly Me...

You can give peace a chance alright..
I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

Everyman a law unto himself? So why would need the other 8 provisions of the Bill of Rights? Why would we need a 1st amendment or any provision of the Constitution? Once we have the 2nd we have all the authority we need. Biggest gun rules.

There you go again just spouting off nonsense and proving nothing except that you have no real evidence or argument against what I have stated.

Man up and actually disprove my statements or just go away..............

If you are implying that only muzzle loaders are covered in the 2nd, then you must also believe that Freedom of the press only applies to hand cranked printing presses putting out papers and books. It couldn't possibly apply to TV or radio or today's newspapers.

Constitutional Republic 101

Constitutional Republic 101 ... We were not founded as a Democracy, where mob rules the way we live our lives...
Moreover, under such a system our rights are subject to constant reinterpretation and are on lease from the government...
Contrary to what the progressives, liberals, Marxists and communist politicians and professors and teachers and school book text writers and publishers would like us to believe, thus trying to re-write history...

We were founded as a Constitutional Republic...

Which sadly, apparently needs repeating...

Please DO read the information at the following two links in their entirety, and spend some time deeply cogitating the contents therein...

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

In order to not be interpreting the amendment away from the original meaning and intent (abridging)one must know the meaning of those words when the amendment was written.

"the people" meant all of the Free, White, Landowning (property could include slaves) , male citizens of the original colonies.

Being freeborn, American, white, male and a landowner (sold all my slaves), I read that to mean I can have my guns. The rest of you darker skinned folks, trailer renting trash , rental apartment dwellers, West Coast weirdoes and females best not be having any guns, you are not covered.

If you are implying that only muzzle loaders are covered in the 2nd, then you must also believe that Freedom of the press only applies to hand cranked printing presses putting out papers and books. It couldn't possibly apply to TV or radio or today's newspapers.

Exactly.

That is why the meaning of "arms" and "keep" and "bear" must be given meaning.

Those terms are not limited to what the Founders understood them to mean.

The point is that there is no inherent meaning to those terms. They have to be given meaning to be operative.

People who claim "it means exactly what I say it means" are just spewing Humpty Dumpty rhetoric.

It might make them feel good, but it has no intellectual persuasive value. It is simply emotional BS.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

In order to not be interpreting the amendment away from the original meaning and intent (abridging)one must know the meaning of those words when the amendment was written.

"the people" meant all of the Free, White, Landowning (property could include slaves) , male citizens of the original colonies.

Being freeborn, American, white, male and a landowner (sold all my slaves), I read that to mean I can have my guns. The rest of you darker skinned folks, trailer renting trash , rental apartment dwellers, West Coast weirdoes and females best not be having any guns, you are not covered.

I really have no problem with an unabridged reading!

(This should start some rather heated conversations!)

So are you one of the ones my Mama warned me about?

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)